I recently had the opportunity to talk with a Protestant (Baptist) friend who told me that Tertullian (an ecclesiastical writer of the early Church) also had “Protestant” positions. He alleged that for Tertullian, when Christ gave the keys to the kingdom of heaven, he gave them to everyone, since for him, the keys meant the preaching of the gospel.
Who is Tertullian?
He was an important ecclesiastical writer born around the year 155. From pagan parents he converted to Christianity around the year 193 and settled in Carthage. He was ordained a priest (1) and carried out his literary activity during the years 195 to 220. Unfortunately, around the year 207 he embraced the heresy of Montanism (2), and became head of one of its sects (the Tertulianists).
How important are Tertullian’s writings for Catholics and Protestants?
The Writings of Tertullian (as well as the writings of the Fathers of the Church and other ecclesiastical writers) are very important, not only for students of patristics and patrology, because they allow us to gain in-depth knowledge of the thinking of the early Church and its way of interpreting the Scriptures.
Although Protestants reject the writings of the fathers and ecclesiastical writers, many of them (the not extremely fundamentalist ones) recognize that they are indispensable for the knowledge of the history of the Church and the development of the Christian faith. And it often happens that although they almost never quote parents, they do so when they think that what they say may bring “water to their own mill.” I wanted to take the opportunity to study the writings of our writer, not only in terms of the points in which Protestants usually quote him, but in their entirety, in order to make a fair and not decontextualized comparison of his thought.
Tertullian, and the primacy of Peter and the forgiveness of sins by the presbyters
In the pre-montanist texts of the primacy there is an implicit acceptance by Tertullian of the preeminence of the Church of Rome. In De praescriptione haereticorum(The prescription of heretics or prescriptions against all heresies) he states that authority is ready in the Church of Rome and mentions the martyrdom of Saints Peter and Saints there.
Tertullian. Prescriptions against all heresies. Chapter XXXVI.2-3.
“2.But if you are near Italy, you have Rome, where authority is also ready for us.. 3 How happy is this Church to which the Apostles gave, with their blood, all the doctrine, where Peter is Equalized to the passion of the Lord, where Paul is crowned with the death of John [Baptist], where the apostle John, after being cast in glowing oil and suffering no harm, is relegated to an island.”
In the same treatise where he tries to demonstrate to the heretics that the Lord hid nothing from the knowledge of the apostles, he gives, for example, Saint Peter and Saint John, but of Saint Peter he says that he is the stone on which the Church was going to be built and that he obtained the keys to the kingdom of heaven and the power to bind and loose. He refers to Saint John but as the beloved disciple.
Tertullian. Prescriptions against all heresies. Chapter XXII.2-4
“3. Who, then, with a healthy mind can believe that those whom the Lord gave as teachers ignored anything, keeping them inseparable in his entourage, in his discipleship, in his coexistence, to whom he exposed all the dark things apart, telling them that it was given to them to know those mysteries that the people were not allowed to understand?
4.Something was hidden from Peter, who was called the stone of the Church that was to be built, who obtained the keys of the kingdom of heaven and the power to loose and bind in heaven and on earth.?”
It is impossible to understand where Tertullian’s position coincides with the Protestant position. It is enough to review all the Protestant articles that have been written against the primacy of Peter, and all without exception deny that Peter is the stone, some have even invented the argument that since the Greek text does not use the same word for Peter and Stone, Christ was not calling Peter “Stone” (3). It is evident that Tertullian did not interpret that way.
However, a notable change occurred in Tertullian’s position once he became a disciple of the heretic Montanus. He did not know that the power conferred on Peter by virtue of his keys was received by his successors. He also denied that the bishops in communion with him could use it, contradicting what he himself had established in De paenitentia(On Penance). He says bluntly in De pudicitia(On modesty):
Tertullian, On Modesty 21
“Yes, because the Lord said to Peter: “I will build my Church on this rock; I have given you the keys of the kingdom of heaven”, or: “Whatever you bind or loose on earth, will be bound or loosed in heaven” you presume that the power to bind and loose has reached you, that is, to the entire Church that is in communion with Peter. What kind of man are you? You dare to pervert and totally change the manifest intention of the Lord, who only conferred this privilege on the person of Peter. “On “I will build my Church to you,” He told him, “I will give you the keys,” not to the Church. “Everything you bind or loose,” etc. And not everything that they bind or loose…Consequently, the power to bind or loose, granted to Peter, has nothing to do with the remission of the capital sins committed by the faithful…This power, in fact, according to the person of Peter, should only belong to spiritual men, whether he be an apostle or a prophet.”
Although the text in question is written by an already heretic Tertullian, it is very revealing, for the following reasons:
Firstly, because in the text it is evident that he was confronting a bishop who used Matthew 16:18-19 to affirm that the Churches in communion with Peter had the authority to forgive sins, even serious ones, in the midst of Tertullian’s time! Protestants (with the exception of Lutherans) deny that priests have this power, but here it can be seen that the early Church was convinced that they did.
Second, because even under this heretical position, Tertullian’s position departs even further from the Protestant position, since he explicitly states that the power of the keys was conferred exclusively on Peter. Somehow Protestants have managed to interpret Matthew 16:18 to mean that every believer has the keys by confessing Christ as Lord. The Catholic position is the balanced position and the one that Tertullian attacks in his writing against the bishop: The Churches in communion with Peter through the presbyters are those that can, by virtue of the keys granted to the apostle, forgive sins, as long as they remain in the unity of the Church.
Let us now return to Tertullian’s pre-montanist period to study a little his position regarding penance. Definitely if he admits here that there is forgiveness of sins after baptism, he makes it clear in De paenitentia
Tertullian, On Penance, 7
7. “O Jesus Christ, my Lord, grant to your servants the grace of knowing and learning from my mouth the discipline of penance, but in so far as it suits them and not to sin; in other words, that after (baptism) they do not have to know penance nor ask for it. I am repelled by mentioning here the second, or rather, in this case, the last penance. I fear that, in speaking of a remedy of penance that is kept in reserve, I seem to suggest that there is still a time in which it can be sin God forbid that anyone misinterpret my thoughts, making us say that with this open door to penitence there is, therefore, now an open door to sin,…We have escaped once (in baptism). Let us not put ourselves in further danger, even if it seems to us that we will still escape again.”
But the second penance that Tertullian refers to here is not at all the Protestant position in the style of “I confess directly to God and that’s it”, but a reconciliation through the Church. The sinner must, according to the writer, submit to exomologesis or public confession, complete the acts of mortification, as explained in detail in chapters 9 to 12.
Tertullian, On Penance, 9-12
“The stricter the need for this second penance, the more laborious the proof must be; it is not enough that there is the consciousness of having done wrong; an act is necessary that manifests it externally. This act, to use a Greek word that is commonly used, is exomologesis, by virtue of which we confess our sin to God, not because He is unaware of it, but because the confession disposes us to satisfaction and performs penance, and this, in turn, appeases the anger of God. Exomologesis is, therefore, an exercise that teaches man to humiliate and debase himself, imposing a regime capable of attracting compassion to him. Regulates your external composure and your diet; He wants him to lie down on sackcloth and ashes, to cover his body with rags, to surrender to sadness, to correct his faults through severe treatment. On the other hand, the penitent must content himself, regarding food and drink, with simple things, which are strictly necessary to sustain life, not to flatter the belly; nourish prayer with fasting; He groans, cries and laments day and night to the Lord, his God; He prostrates himself at the feet of the priests and kneels before the friends of God; He requests the prayers of his brothers, so that they can serve as intercessors before God.
When the text refers to prostrating at the feet of the priest, it indicates that penitential discipline was an ecclesiastical institution, which ended with an official absolution. Tertullian questions those who avoid this duty saying: “Is it better to be condemned in secret than to be forgiven in public?”
It becomes evident that Tertullian’s position in this regard is far from the Protestant position.
Tertullian, apostolic succession and Sacred Tradition
Tertullian’s pre-montanist vision clearly defines that heretics cannot claim to have a legitimate Church unless they can prove that their origin descends from the Churches founded by the apostles that preserve the true Tradition. He clearly expresses it in De praescriptione haereticorum.
Tertullian. Prescriptions against all heresies. Chapter XXXII.
“1. For the rest, if some [heresies] dare to insert themselves into the apostolic age to seem transmitted by the Apostles because they existed in the time of the Apostles, We can say: publish, then, the origins of your churches, display the list of your bishops, so that, through the succession that runs from the beginning, that first bishop has had one of the Apostles as guarantor and predecessor. or one of the apostolic men, but who has persevered with the Apostles.
2. Indeed, In this way the apostolic churches make their origins known.: as the church of the Smiornites relates that Polycarp was appointed by John, like that of the Romans that Clement was ordained by Peter. 3. In the same way, certainly, the other churches also show that they have offspring of apostolic seed destined for the episcopacy by the apostles. 4. Let heretics invent something similar. Well, after so much blasphemy, what is illegal for them?
It is impossible to imagine why my Protestant friend considers Tertullian also Protestant, what I do know is that he would not have felt at all good listening to Tertullian demand the apostolic origin of his denomination. He would have been more upset to hear him say that they have no right to argue about the Scriptures, because for him there is a prescription that excludes all argument: he cannot use the Bible for the simple reason that the Bible is not his:
Tertullian. Prescriptions against all heresies. Chapter XV ss.
“2. They [heretics] put the Scriptures before them and, with such audacity, immediately impress some. But in the debate itself they certainly tire out the strong, capture the weak, leave those of intermediate condition full of scruples. 3. That is why we cut them off by adopting this position, the best one: not admitting them to any discussion about the Scriptures. 4. If these are their strengths, in order that they may use them, it must first be discerned to whom the possession of the Scriptures belongs, so that he to whom it in no way belongs may not be admitted to them. XVI. 1. This approach could have been introduced out of mistrust or a desire to approach the issue in a different way, if there were no reasons. Firstly, that our faith owes obedience to the apostle, who prohibits starting discussions, listening to new words, visiting the heretic after a correction (4)…”
He immediately criticizes the attitude of heretics regarding their use of Scripture, where they admit some, or do not admit them in full, but rather distort them to support their positions.
Tertullian. Prescriptions against all heresies. Chapter XVII.
1. “This heresy does not admit certain Scriptures, and if it admits some, it does not admit them in their entirety; however, it changes them, composing interpretations contrary to the Christian faith. 2. A falsifying intelligence is as opposed to the truth as a corrupting pen. Their vain conjectures necessarily refuse to recognize those passages by which they are refuted; 3. they rely on those they have fraudulently retouched and on those they have chosen because of their ambiguity.”
For Tertullian, to know the true meaning of Scripture, one must turn to the school of Christ, that is, to the apostles, therefore, only in the apostolic Churches can it occur with the correct interpretation of the Scriptures. In short, nothing about each person interpreting the Bible on their own (Me, my Bible and the Holy Spirit and no one else!).
Tertullian and the Eucharist
Tertullian’s position in this regard never changed, not even in his Montanist period (5), his conviction that the consecrated bread and wine become and are truly the body and blood of the Lord. There has been no shortage, however, of anti-Catholic Protestants (Daniel Sapia for example (6)) who have tried to take advantage of a text by the writer out of context to make something else understood.
The text in question is the following where Tertullian calls the consecrated bread “figure of his body” and from there they begin to interpret that by being a figure he meant symbolism rather than real presence. Generally they also quote it up to where it says “figure of his body” leaving the text completely decontextualized.
Tertullian, Against Marcion L.4 c.40 (Kroymann, 559ss; OEHLER, 2,267s, ML 2,460 A – 462A).
“…With great desire I have desired to eat the Passover with you before suffering, O destroyer of the law who longed to observe the Passover even!, surely it would delight him with the meat of the Jewish lamb. Or was it he, who, having to be led to the sacrifice like a sheep, and who, like a sheep before its shearer, was not to open his mouth, wanted to make the figure of his saving blood? It could also be given by any stranger so that I would not say that in this also the psalm was fulfilled: He who eats bread with me will lift up his foot against me…But this would have been typical of another Christ, not the one who fulfilled the prophecies…Having declared, then, that He had greatly desired to eat the Passover, as His own, since it is unworthy for God to desire something foreign, having taken the bread and distributed it to the disciples, He made it His body, saying: This is my body, that is, “figure of my body.” But it would not have been a figure, if it were not a true body. Furthermore, a vain thing like a ghost could not contain the figure. Or if for this he made his body bread, because he lacked a true body, then He must have given bread for us. For Marcion’s emptiness, was bread to be crucified, and not rather the melon that Marcion had instead of a heart? Not understanding that this figure of the body of Christ is ancient, which says through Jeremiah: They urged plots against me, saying: Come, let us put a splinter in his bread, that is, the cross in his body. Thus, he who illuminates the ancient figures, by calling the bread his body, sufficiently declared that he meant then the bread. And so in the commemoration of the chalice, constituting the testament sealed with his blood, it confirmed the substance of his body. Because blood cannot be from any body that is not flesh. For if any non-carnal property of the body opposes us, certainly if it is not carnal it will not have blood. Thus the proof of the reality of the body will be confirmed by the testimony of the flesh, and the proof of the reality of the flesh by the testimony of the blood. And so that you recognize the ancient figure of the blood in the wine, Isaiah says… Much more manifestly in Genesis, in the blessing of Judah, from whose tribe the origin of the flesh of Christ was to come, already then outlined to Christ in Judah: He will wash, he said, his clothing in wine, and his mantle in the blood of grapes, the stole and the mantle meaning the flesh and the wine the blood. Thus now he consecrated his blood in the wine, who then made the wine a figure of his blood…..”
To understand Tertullian’s words, we must know the context. Marcion denied that Christ had a true body. The force of Tertullian’s argument against Marcion was that the bread could not be the true body of Christ, if Christ had not also had a true body. How could the Church unanimously believe that the consecrated bread was the body of Christ if Christ had no body? That was Tertullian’s weapon against Marcion. Additionally when he says: “The bread made his body” denotes a change of substance. The reality of the Eucharist and the faith of the Church demonstrated the physical reality of the body of Christ.
Tertullian uses the expression figura de su cuerpo to refer to the real body. Tertullian speaks of the Eucharistic bread as a “figure” of the body of Christ, because the true body of Christ had been announced in the OT by the prophets under the figure of the bread, just as the true blood had been prefigured in the wine.
The Protestant theologian and historian Cesar Vidal Manzanares recognizes this:
Cesar Vidal Manzanares. Dictionary of Patristics.
“[Tertullian] did not frequently deal with the subject of the Eucharist, but it seems clear that he considers it a sacrifice (De oratXIX) and, of course, he affirmed the real presence (De pud IX, De idolVII). As he himself points out: “The bread that Christ took and gave to his disciples, he made his body saying This is my body” (Adv. Marc. IV, 40). SIt has been discussed whether the expression “represent” in relation to the role that the bread plays with respect to the body of Christ in the Eucharist would not be contradictory with what was previously stated. Actually, we think not, since here “represent” has the content of making present. Bread is the means that would be used, then, to make the body of Christ present — not just to symbolize it — in the Eucharist.”
A complete analysis of Tertullian’s texts completely excludes the Protestant interpretation. Tertullian even declares that they suffer anxiety if any of the consecrated bread falls to the floor, proof that he recognized it as a simple symbol and considers it a very serious affront for sinners to approach the Eucharist, which he explicitly calls “Body of the Lord”, with sinful hands. It also alludes to the fact that the Church is fed with the delights of the body and blood of the Lord, which is the Eucharist.
Tertullian, Against Marcion L.5 c.8 (Kroymann, 597; OEHLER, 2,296, ML 2,489 A).
“Whereby, Through the sacrament of the bread and the cup, we have already proven in the gospel the truth of the body and blood of the Lord against the ghost advocated by Marcion…”
Tertullian, On the crown C.3 (KROYMANN: CSEL 70 (1942) 158, OEHLER, 1421ff; ml 2.79 A – 80 A)
“The sacrament of the Eucharist entrusted by the Lord at the time of supper, and to all, we also take it in the pre-dawn meetings, and not from the hand of others but from those who preside;… We suffer anxiety if something from our chalice or even our bread falls to the ground.”
Tertullian, On idolatry (C.7 (A. REIFFERSCHEID – G. WISSOWA; CSEL 20,1 (1890)36; OEHLER, 1,74s; ML 1,669 A-B)
“The zeal of faith will speak crying at this point: is it possible for a Christian to come from idols to the Church, from the workshop of the adversary to the house of God; to raise the hands that are mothers of idols to God the Father; to pray with those hands to which outside one prays against God, and bring those hands that lead bodies to demons closer to the body of the Lord?..”
Tertullian: About honesty. C.9 (G. RAUSCHEN: FP (1915) 53s; OEHLER, 1,810s; ML 2,997 D – 998 C)
“…then he also receives the first ring, with which, after being interrogated, he seals the commitment of faith, and thus he is then fed with the delights of the body of the Lord, namely with the Eucharist“
Tertullian and the Virgin Mary
Tertullian echoes other fathers in calling the Virgin Mary “The New Eve” in De carne Christi17 (On the Flesh of Christ).
Tertullian. On the Flesh of Christ, 17
“Eve was still a Virgin when the seductive word that was going to build the edifice of death was insinuated into her ear. Therefore, that Word of God that came to raise the edifice of life had to also be introduced into a virgin, so that the same sex that was the cause of our ruin would also be the instrument of our salvation. Eve created the serpent; Mary believed Gabriel. The disgrace that the first attracted by her credulity must erase the second by her faith. But (someone will say) Eve did not conceive in her womb because of the word of the devil; but, in any case, she conceived because the word of the devil was a kind of seed for her. That is why she conceived in exile and gave birth in pain. In short, he gave the world a fratricidal brother; Mary, on the other hand, gave birth to a Son who was to save Israel.”
However, Tertullian was the first to reject the dogma of Mary’s virginity after childbirth, against the general opinion of the Church. Origen, on the other hand, had said that Mary conceived and gave birth as a virgin (7), as did Saint Irenaeus in his demonstration of apostolic preaching (c.54) written in the year 190, in addition to other testimonies such as the Odes of Solomon (first half of the 2nd century), the apocryphal Gospel of James (from the middle of the 2nd century) and the Ascension of Isaiah from the last decade of the 1st century.
Conclusion
Was Tertullian a Protestant? Just answer these questions:
1) Do Protestants believe that a Church is not legitimate if it cannot demonstrate through an uninterrupted succession of bishops whether it comes from an apostle (apostolic succession) and that Peter is the stone on which the Church was built?
2) Do Protestants believe that the Church is the only one authorized to correctly interpret the Scriptures and that those who separate from it have no right to appeal to them?
3) Do Protestants believe that the Eucharist is the body of the Lord and do they suffer anxiety if something falls on the floor?
4) Do Protestants confess their sins before the clergy and do the penance imposed by them?
5) Do you believe that baptism is a necessary sacrament for salvation?
If you can answer yes to all of those answers, then Cyprian was a Protestant.
Now, if they refer to Tertullian’s montanist period, where he ignores that bishops in communion with Peter can absolve the faithful of serious sins, affirming that these sins are unforgivable, ending up rejecting the authority of the Pope to embrace a sect and then found one of their own that eventually disappeared, well yes, Tertullian was Protestant. (I hope that from this perspective, they will not later come to teach that Montanus was the manifestation of the Holy Spirit, the promised paraclete).
Notes:
(1) According to Saint Jerome (De vir. Ill. 53)
(2) Montanism: Heretics of the 1st and 2nd centuries, followers of Montanus. Montanus began to preach in the year 172, presenting himself as an enlightened man with the gift of prophecy sent by God. Among his disciples, among whom were prestigious figures such as Tertullian, they considered him, on the other hand, the Paraclete promised by Christ, a title that Montanus himself granted. He affirmed that Jesus Christ had not revealed everything to men, but had told the apostles that he had many things to teach them but that they were not yet able to understand them, and that task had been granted to him. The first Montanists did not change anything about Catholic doctrine, but they fell into notorious excesses such as the denial of absolution for those who had committed serious sins (apostasy and adultery for example), they rejected marriage and conjugal relations because they considered them to be a departure from prophetic visions (Tertullian would condemn remarriages), they judged women’s childbirth as diabolical, and they distanced themselves from philosophy, arts and letters.
(3) The argument that Christ was not referring to Peter, since in Greek Peter (Petros) and rock (petra) are different words (“You are “Petros”… and on this “petra” I will build my church) fails because it would render meaningless the name change that the Lord has just granted to Peter, and because the Lord spoke in Aramaic and not Greek, and in this language there is no such distinction. Jesus would have said in Aramaic “You are Kefa/Cephas and on this Kefa/Cephas “I will build my church.” It appears in Paul’s own letters that Jesus changed Peter’s name in Aramaic (Cephas), but when translating into Greek the name had to be masculinized, since PETRA is feminine. Thus when the gospel is written and the evangelist has to translate Cephas, instead of saying PETRA (“stone in Spanish”), masculinized the name: PETROS (Stone).
(4) Cf. Tt 3,10.
(5) Montanism did not differ from the Catholic faith in the Eucharistic doctrines.
(6) Daniel Sapia: Argentine programmer who started a website with anti-Catholic purposes. He generated a scandal when (along with other fundamentalists), he published that Pope John Paul II sat in a satanic chair and that he was the workforce of the antichrist. It was forcefully refuted by Jorge Pedernera in apologetica.org, yet he maintains his accusation that according to him applies to each of the pontiffs.
(7) “Mary preserved her virginity until the end so that the body that was destined to serve the Word would not know a sexual relationship with a man, from the moment that the Holy Spirit and the strength of the Almighty had descended upon her as a shadow. I think it is well founded to say that Jesus has become for men the first fruit of purity which consists of chastity and Mary in turn for women. It would not be good to attribute the first fruit of Virginity to another. Origen, In Mt. Comm. 10,17: GCS 10,21
Author: Eng. José Miguel Arráiz
Bibliography
BAC 206. Patrology I, Johannes Quasten
BAC 88. Primitive Eucharistic Texts I, Jesús Solano
Fuentes patrísticas 14. Tertullian. “Prescriptions” against all heresies. Bilingual Edition
Manual of heresies, H. Masson
Mariology, José C.R. Garcia Paredes
Catholic Website Mercaba.org, http://www.mercaba.org/TESORO/cartel-patres.htm
Catholic Website of the Magisterium of the Church
